Justice K. Babu He observed that there must be very important reasons to revoke bail.

“While granting bail to the Applicant, the Trial Judge never took into account the condition that he should not be involved in any other crime during the course of the trial. The Sessions Judge merely wanted or intended that the investigation should be completed smoothly without any interference from the accused.“

The accused was prosecuted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for allegedly being in possession of 2,045 kg of marijuana. He was released on conditional bail on 23/07/2022. One of the conditions was that the petitioner should not be involved in any other crime while on bail. The police submitted the final report in this case. The suspect appeared in court and was released on bail.

A year later, another offense was registered against the accused under Sections 324, 326, 323, 294(b), 506 and 34 of the IPC. In this case, the plaintiff was released on regular bail. However, his bail in the NDPS case was canceled by the Sessions Judge. Against this decision, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The applicant argued that the conditions imposed on him on bail were not in force at the time he was involved in the second offence. He argued that the prosecution had not presented any material to show that he had committed the subsequent offence. He also stated that even if it is assumed that he was involved in another crime after the final report regarding the previous crime was submitted, there could be no interference with the course of justice. However, the prosecution argued that the conditions continued even after the final report was submitted.

The court noted that it was not the prosecution’s case that the defendant’s involvement in the second case had any connection with the trial or any other proceedings in the NDPS case. The Court held that the Sessions Judge canceled the bail mechanically. He stated that being released on bail is a matter that concerns the freedom of the individual and that there must be convincing and irresistible reasons for the cancellation of the bail given to the defendant.

““The bail issue is a matter of liberty, justice, public safety and the burden of the public purse, all of which insist that an improved bail jurisprudence is an integral part of a socially responsive judicial process.”

The court stood Godson and Another – State of Kerala (2022) Observing that bail cancellation should not replace preventive detention laws. The court stated that in the current case, cancellation of bail would replace preventive detention.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Plaintiff’s Attorney: Atty. Gokul D. Sudhakaran

Defendants’ Lawyer: Atty. G. Sudheer (PP)

Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. 1110 / 2024

Case Title: Visakh v. State of Kerala and Another

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 730